In my post outlining a strategy for opponents of the people’s veto of the bill passed by the elected legislature and signed by the elected Governor recognizing gay marriage, I noted (in a footnote) that one of the ideas I was putting forward, featuring same-sex couples talking about their relationships represented a shift in my position.

You see, I had long believed that because of the “ick” factor, the cause gay marriage would be better served by not showing gay couples. Many Americans may not mind what people do in their own bedrooms, just so long as they don’t have to be reminded about it by seeing them together. They’re fine with us being left alone to live our lives as we please, just as long as we don’t do it in front of them.

But, something I read on a left-wing blog (I believe it was Michael Petrelis’s site, but am certain there were others) actually got the gears in my head spinning and caused me to rethink the issue. These left-of-center bloggers (I’m pretty sure it was more than one) lamented the absence of gay people in the “No on 8″ commercials. And said something like,”Why can’t we make the case for our rights.”

And while I disagreed with their choice of rhetoric, I realized that if wavering (and wary) voters say a gay person saying he understood what marriage was all about and was ready to assume its responsibilities, then more people might see that this wasn’t just about a milepost in the culture wars (to paraphrase one wise law professor), but about affirming the values of an ancient institution.

If people see a gay person saying that, it could both change minds and promote healthy and genuine social change.

When I read last night that my state’s junior Senator, Ma’am Barbara Boxer, was appearing at bookstores in the Bay Area to sign her latest thriller, I wondered that she had time to promote a book, yet not to listen to her constituents as the Senate prepares to debate climate control legislation as well as a massive health insurance overhaul.

So, I called her office to ask about this. According to Ma’am’s staff, she has “nothing scheduled.” Amazing. She’s more interested in selling her book than doing her job. She doesn’t care what her constituents think. Meanwhile, though blissfully unaware of what those constituents wear when they protest the type of big-government policies she tends to favor, she attacks people she was elected to represent as not having genuine concerns about the growing size of the federal government and its increasing intrusion into our private lives.

The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game here with the constant references to people being un-American, racist and evil-mongers, all simply for exercising their freedom of speech. A slippery slope they may not be happy to be riding down pretty soon if they don’t wise up and start respecting the very people they work for.

And Ma’am has shown no respect for the people she works for, slamming protesters while oblivious to our concerns. All the same, were she to suddenly recognize the duties incumbent upon a responsible public servant and schedule town halls across the Golden State, it behooves us to show her the respect due a dignified legislator.

While signs should be allowed outside the meeting, they should not be allowed inside. While we can chant slogans in the open, once inside, we should must listen when she speaks. And thank her should she reply in a civil manner, addressing the question posed. (And yes, this means thanking here even (indeed, especially) when she expresses an opinion different from our own.) Unlike the SEIU (and other pro-Obama groups), we don’t seek to drown out out the views of our opponents.

And we would expect her to show us the same respect we show her, letting critics make their points without interruption and not limiting attendance to a pre-selected group of supporters.

Peggy may not deliver the same kind of acerbic jabs as does the acid-tongued Camille Paglia (the Hecate of punditry or the Medusa?) but, in her own gentle way, she reminds us of the President’s faults.

While she has been less critical of Obama than some on the right would like, she does get the essence of his “slippery” rhetoric:

When Mr. Obama stays above the fray, above the nitty-gritty of specifics, when he confines his comments on health care to broad terms, he more and more seems . . . pretty slippery. In the town hall he seemed aware of this, and he tried to be very specific about the need for this aspect of a plan, and the history behind that proposal. And yet he seemed even more slippery. When he took refuge in the small pieces of his argument, he lost the major threads; when he addressed the major threads, he seemed almost to be conceding that the specifics don’t hold.

The specifics don’t hold.

The president actually helped me stay fit today. I did a little extra cardio after my workout so I could hear the balance of his town hall. He told us that we can’t have “something for nothing,” yet with the various proposals all having price tags in the hundreds of bilions of dollars. A few moments later, he reaffirmed his (long since broken) pledge not to raise taxes on those earning under $250,000 a year.

He’s going to have a hard time covering the program’s cost by only increasing taxes on “the rich.”

Since I won’t have much time to scan the left-wing blogs today, could any of you who do let me know if any criticize this Mr. Hart. Or even note the story.

It matters in the current context because it’s another piece of evidence of staged hate rhetoric to show about all the nasty right-wingers out there. Yeah, there are a number of nutcases on our side, but the universe of them is not as vast as lefties might think — or want. It’s why I’m not yet ready to assign blame to an Obama critic for painting a swastika on the sign for Obama supporter Representative David Scott’s Georgia office.

Whoever did paint the Nazi symbol is clearly a crackpot who should be punished for defacement of public property. And condemned for further corrupting public discourse.

Now, I had planned to get the cheese and olives I’ll be taking to the BBQ Leah is hosting tomorrow for our LA readers (and a visiting San Francisco one) at Monsieur Marcel in the Farmer’s Market. (It’s not too late to RSVP.) And while their cheese selection is great–and they have some wonderful Spanish olives–parking at the Farmer’s Market can be trying.

And there’s a Whole Foods Market just a few block away, almost within walking distance for an Angeleno (it is more than three blocks way). I think I’ll go there first.

Given her strong and frequent defenses of Sarah Palin, Camille Paglia certainly merits consideration for the coveted title of Grande Conservative Blogress Diva (soon to be renamed as the Ethel). She is tart-tongued and witty, speaking her mind. She never minces her words. While claiming to be of the left, does not allow herself to be pigeon-holed. In truth, she subscribes to no political ideology, acidly taking potshots at even her ostensible allies.

She’ll not only take them on if she doesn’t agree with them, but also if she doesn’t like the way they’re playing the game. She doesn’t let partisan labels or political worldview prevent her from calling things as she sees them. She may love Barack Obama, but she’ll lambaste her beloved Democrat when she believes he’s governing badly–or surrounding him with tone-deaf advisers. And she doesn’t soft-pedal such criticism, even of an ally. Even it if means being labeled “C**tzilla.”

I have long been a fan of this gifted scholar and social critic, having met her in 1994 at a reading/book-signing organized by the D.C.. bookstore Chapters. Her book Sexual Personae has been an invaluable resource for my dissertation on the goddess Athena. My readers–and almost never the liberal ones–regularly alert me to her columns. In short, this Obama supporter has gained the respect of gay conservatives, thus, in my mind, at least, qualifying her for the coveted contest.

Recall that we have defined a diva as a strong, confident woman who commands the respect of men. And of the Grande Conservative Blogress diva, I have written:

She need not be conservative herself . . . , but must by the the power of her prose, the eloquence of her expression and the intelligence of her ideas have earned the enmity of the angry left and so endeared herself to gay men like us who admire strong women who speak their minds, even at the expense of encomia from those in the entertainment industry and the MSM.

Being called C**tzilla suggests earning enmity from the angry left.

So, my friends, I put this question to you, in December, when we again began the process of selecting the most (cat) fought-over title in the blogosphere, should we consider Camille Paglia for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva?

This is a letter I submitted to our Representative Jeff Miller (FL-1) at a sort of-Town Hall meeting on Wednesday. If anyone would like to copy and paste and edit or whatever and send to your Reps, Senators, President, whoever may need to know that we are concerned with what is taking place, please feel free.

AUGUST 12, 2009

Representative Jeff Miller,

The Declaration of Independence serves as a model declaration for expressing our grave concern about the actions taken by the Federal Government recently, which is causing the People of Fort Walton Beach and throughout the United States to rise up and express our sincere outrage over the abuses of power, reductions in freedom, irresponsibility with our nation’s finances, lack or transparency and accountability by our duly elected officials and representatives and general disregard of the constraints of government power guaranteed us by the Constitution of the United States of America.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to voice our concern with the current direction of repression and irresponsibility from our Federal government, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to rise up in mass and ongoing protest.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are institutes among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter it and to elect new Government, which is most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Prudence will dictate that Governments long established should not be protested and confronted continuously for light and transient causes. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to rise up and confront such a Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such as been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to confront and challenge the current elected representatives.

The history of the present President and Congress of the United States and past elected officials is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have created, campaigned and championed divisions within our nation based on race, gender, age, income, religion, political connections, and industry.

They have weakened the Sovereignty of the States through excessive regulation by loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, by Unconstitutional federal environmental and labor laws, and by using federal tax revenues to create incentives for the States to enact Federally-desired laws.

They have eliminated competition between the States through a tax code that does not allow local choices for State spending priorities and policy strategies.

They have ignored the proper role of the Federal government in usurping powers reserved to the States by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

I highly doubt the leaders of Maine Freedom (sic) to Marry will solicit my advice (or that of any other gay conservative for that matter) on how to oppose the “people’s veto” slated for the Pine Tree State’s ballot this fall. Indeed, just by checking their website, it seems they’ve already subscribed to the various mantras of the gay left, with their slogan, “Protect Maine Equailty.”

It appears they’re about to repeat the mistakes of the “No on 8″ campaign here in the Golden State.

Lt me offer my advice (thought I doubt it will be heeded) on how they can veto this people’s veto of legislation passed by the elected legislature and signed by the elected Governor.

Second, unlike the California campaign, they should feature same-sex Maine couples in TV commercials, telling us that they understand the responsibilities of marriage and are ready to make the commitment.* (Or something similar.) Perhaps, even include gay couples together with straight married siblings. Maybe even have their parents present.

In short, they should talk about marriage not as a right, but as an institution, whose traditions they respect (even revere) and whose obligations they are ready to assume.

If they focus on the rights angle, contending a “Yes” vote (to veto legislation recognizing same-sex marriages) means the state would be taking away their rights, they will come across as whiners. Most people, at least those who take marriage seriously, don’t see marriage as a right. And if gay activists comes across as whiners, wavering voters may assume all gay people are so petulant and thus not worthy of marriage, hence the idea of featuring confident people in commercials, couples saying they’re “ready” for the responsibilities of marriage.

Up until today, it seemed that whenever I walked, wherever I drove in Los Angeles, I would spot a car (or two or three or four or many, many more) sporting an Obama bumper sticker. But, yesterday, something strange happened.

I drove for thirty minutes — on my way to dine with a friend in Calabasas –without seeing a single Obama sticker. And then I saw one; that would be the only one I saw all evening, even on my drive back, cutting from the 101 freeway across the heart of Hollywood.

Maybe, as people see just how much this Democrat plans on expanding government, they’re having second thoughts.

The times they might be a-changing, even in liberal Los Angeles.

UPDATE: This looks like a good post to share a photo I snapped a few weeks ago on the way to class. I was surprised and amused to see a “NIXON/AGNEW” sticker on a car that didn’t look 30+ years old to me. This really isn’t about anyone’s views on the late Prez and Veep, just that because they served so long ago seeing a bumper sticker for them struck me as being a lil’ unusual this day and age. – John (Average Gay Joe)